Prince v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co.

Before
the court is defendant Oregon Mutual Insurance Company's
(“Oregon Mutual”) motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction, in the alternative to dismiss for
improper venue, in the alternative to transfer for improper
venue, or in the alternative to transfer for convenience.
(ECF No. 5). Plaintiff responded (ECF No. 7) and Oregon
Mutual replied (ECF No. 8).

I.
Background

This
action arises out of a coverage dispute between plaintiff, an
Idaho resident, against Oregon Mutual, an Oregon corporation
whose principal place of business is Oregon, regarding
plaintiff's claim for underinsured motorist coverage. On
June 30, 2011, plaintiff was involved in a car accident with
Courtney Spring on State Route 225 near the Wild Horse
Recreation Area, Elko, County, Nevada. Plaintiff was the
permissive driver of the truck owned by Doug Smith. Doug
Smith had a personal automobile insurance policy with Farmers
Insurance Group, issued in Idaho, which had underinsured
motorist limits of $100, 000. Plaintiff also had a personal
automobile insurance policy with Oregon Mutual, issued in
Idaho, covering plaintiff as an insured and had underinsured
motorist limits of $100, 000. Plaintiff's medical
expenses resulting from the accident exceed $99, 728.32 and
his loss of earnings exceed $96, 492.64. O n November 15,
2011, plaintiff filed suit against Courtney Spring. On June
13, 2013, plaintiff received the liability limits of $100,
000 from Courtney Spring. Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he
difference in limits or offset underinsured motorist coverage
required the first $100, 000 of the $200, 000 underinsured
motorist coverage available to Plaintiff to be offset against
the $100, 000 liability limits paid by Courtney Spring
through his personal automobile liability insurance policy,
thereby providing $100, 000 in underinsured motorist benefits
available to Plaintiff as compensation for his serious and
permanent injuries.” (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 17).

On
August 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint requesting
declaratory relief regarding whether the automobile insurance
policy provided by Oregon Mutual provides $100, 000
underinsured motorist coverage to plaintiff for the injuries
plaintiff sustained as a result of a June 30, 2011 accident.
(ECF No. 1). The complaint states that there is diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and that venue
is appropriate in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district.

II.
Motion to Transfer Venue

The
court first addresses the Oregon Mutual's motion to
transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section
1404 establishes that “[f]or the convenience of parties
and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court
may transfer any civil action to any other district or
division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a). The moving party bears the burden of showing
that an adequate alternative forum exists. Jones v. GNC
Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 499 n. 22 (9th Cir.
2000).

Motions
to transfer under § 1404(a) are adjudicated through an
“individualized, case-by-case consideration of
convenience and fairness.” Id. at 498(quoting
Stewart Org. Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29
(1988)). In determining whether transfer is appropriate in a
particular case, the court is required to weigh multiple
factors.

For example, the court may consider: (1) the location where
the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the
state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the
plaintiff's choice of forum, (4) the respective
parties' contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts
relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen
forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the
two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to
compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8)
the ease of access to sources of proof.

Id. at 498-99.

A.
Action Could Have Been Brought in the District of Idaho

Here,
the action could have been brought in the United States
District Court for the District of Idaho, Southern Division.
First, venue is proper because substantial conduct giving
rise to the claim occurred in Idaho-the insurance contract
was executed in Idaho and the alleged denial of coverage
occurred in Idaho. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
Second, the federal district court in Idaho has personal
jurisdiction over the defendant as Oregon Mutual has
sufficient minimum contacts with Idaho. Oregon Mutual does
business writing insurance policies in Idaho and executed the
contract at issue in Idaho. Finally, the parties do not
dispute that the federal district court in Idaho would have
diversity jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims.

B.
Convenience of the Parties and Interests of Justice

1.
Where relevant agreements were negotiated and executed

The
only agreement at issue is the insurance contract entered
into between Oregon Mutual and Ronetta Smith. (ECF No. 5,
Exhibit A). The record reflects that this agreement was
negotiated and ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.